Dialectical Materialism

My name not being Karl Marx and the real fellow in all his boils, physical and mental, having been gone from us for almost a century and a half, I thought I might taking a stab at a description of the most famous thesis of his vast philosophical vision. After all, what is he going to do, return from some nonexistent Marxist hell and upbraid my analysis? Oh well Uncle Karl, here goes!

Now the important epistemological thing to take away from the doctrine, is the term itself. Neither 'Dialectical' nor 'Materialism' are defined conventionally. Dialectical does not refer to a system of mutual learning by conversation, nor does Materialism really have to do with random run-ins with countertops or other angry dogs or other objects with a definable presence of their own. 

Rather, dialectical in Marxian terms has to do with the classic Hegelian triad of Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Marxian thought may be the furthest anyone has ever put Hegel to a practical application and history has confirmed it's as scary a consideration as it sounds.

As for Materialism, in Marxian terms, it's actually something of an odd hybrid of materialist and metaphysical principles. That is to say, matter that is taken into an intellectual frame of reference ceases to be ordinary matter and instead is transfigured into an abstract state. This last seems drawn from a peculiar German fixation on ascribing spiritual properties with material attributes and vice versa.

Therefore, a bunch of guys working at a factory, with families, cultures, dreams and aspirations of their own, are not merely a gang of people who happen to be working together. They are transformed by the ideology into producers of labor, the fundamental value in Marxism, workers who can be united into a power of their own, the Proletariat!

Say they are the thesis, the central figure in the vision of the Marxist. Since Marxism is a confrontational structure, this power has to be set against a power and authority that both defines it and grants a purpose to its existence, to be that which it is not. That antithesis is Propertied Capital, the exploitive class whose actions lead to the destruction of peoples and communities, namely the Bourgeoisie. 

These are shorn of their existence as trades, as families, as even individuals of variations in character and talents. Rather, is one lives by mind and connections, one is immediately branded as an exploiter and set within this class, no exceptions. That is the ruthless edict of Marxist social thought, that distills all it sees to labels that are to magically convey whatever it is that thing truly is, to reveal it totally, without any tiresome subtleties or reference.

Finally, the synthesis is the Class Struggle, the supposedly inevitable conflict between these two categories of human phenotypes that produces the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the ultimate eschatology of human history. A society blessed by the high traits possessed by the Proletariat of selflessness, mutual support and community, traits that will apparently thrive after the old bourgeoisie structures based on exploitation, property and finance cease to be. By the way, according to the violent nature of this conflict as explicated by Marx, apparently proletarian virtues do not include compassion for one's enemies and respect for all human existence, oh well.

Well they would probably have to. Because frankly such a utopian scheme, and as much as either Marx or Engels tried to escape the utopian label, that is precisely what it is, has never really succeeded. As is the fate of any society that obviates the need for human activity, labor value if you would, to be compensated by some type of incentive, usually of a monetary nature.

But again Uncle Karl, that's just my take.